PAM DZAMA | Crass rants discourage civil debate

A letter to the editor two weeks ago stated eloquently the case for politeness in our political debate. A woman from Port Orchard wrote: "With passions running high and political lines being drawn, I think it is time for some common sense to be injected this election season."

She went on to list a number of important elements to consider when deciding how to vote: Learn the facts about the candidates and understand the issues at stake. Don't get caught up in the "cult of personality" or any claim to "likability" because there are so many important matters at stake, none of which has anything to do with someone's star power or smiling face.

While much of her letter urged a common-sense approach to decision-making, I believe what she was really asking for is more civility in our political discourse. "Reject that which, while attractive to your emotions and passions, actually hurts the debate ... when debating someone, don't resort to calling silly names or personal attacks — we are all in this together and we need to find workable solutions together and that won't happen when you are attacking a person not the problem ..."

A management class I took dealing with employee counseling stressed the importance of focusing on the situation, not the person. It's the same concept emphasized in the letter: don't attack the person, tackle the problem.

How long did it take for any pretense of civility to disappear? Online, it was two hours after the first comment thanking the letterwriter for good advice. The negative post proceeded to violate every principle she'd proposed: "Thank you for that great advice. I was going to vote for that Kenyan born, muslim, socialist, caliphate building, America destroying, negro. Just because he talked nice ... but now I will carefully cast my vote for the guy that promises to give huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy and rob the poor and take away my medicare."

It's hard to know exactly what to make of this diatribe other than it's either an attempted feeble joke or an example of equal opportunity offensive thinking.

If we're to solve the serious problems our country faces it can't be done with posts like the prior one. But it didn't stop there. Another contributor to the online dialogue posted a quote from Barry Goldwater in 1961. In case no one noticed that's over a half century ago. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How do we solve our unemployment problems, our deficit and our mounting debt if we're looking backward 50 years?

The discourse didn't improve over the next several days. Two days after this letter ran another, quite different one was published — "I'm fed up with GOP selfishness." The first sentence read, "I am so tired of the Republicans who defined 'success' only as having stored up large piles of money ... Their definition of success does not include ... people who write best-selling books or athletes who win gold medals ... or teachers ... or doctors ... or airline pilots ... or soldiers who serve our country ..."

A comment on another letter stated this, "God, please give me the capacity not to be led astray by crazy, self-serving, intolerant, judgmental, hypocritical, deniers of others' rights, self-designated omnipotent, un-Christlike Christians …. Otherwise known as Republicans."

This sort of comment is hardly constructive and only serves to further divide and not allow anyone to really discuss the issues.

A letter in another local paper claimed, " ... Make no mistake. Romney and Ryan work for those whose real goal is to consolidate wealth and power at the very top. Their dream is to replace democracy with a feudal system of government 'of, by and for' the very rich ..."

So in less than two weeks here's the image of Republicans that's been invented: We're doomed if these self-centered rich folks who don't appreciate success other than wealth accumulation, embrace feudalism and are intolerant, judgmental, hypocritical and un-Christlike Christians win this election.

How are we to carry on a constructive conversation focused on solving our critical problems if this is the image created by progressives, some of whom are Democratic operatives? I know there are some on the political right who believe President Obama is intentionally damaging our country with his policies. While I profoundly disagree with the direction he's taken, I don't believe that course is any different than left-leaning liberals in the past have pursued. "Birthers" and conspiracy theorists on the right don't advance a civil discussion and actually hurt the conservative agenda.

This election is too important for voters to base their decisions on emotional elements instead of actual facts. There's too much at stake to engage in name-calling and phantom boogiemen fabrications which won't solve the serious problems this country faces.